The other side of NAIS

By Randy Givens
for eco-logic/Powerhouse

June 1, 2006

Editors' note: Here is a reply to a recent pro-NAIS article by Cindy Coping, published in the May, 2006, People for the West Newsletter (scroll down to read the original article).

I was extremely disappointed to read the article on the National Animal Identification by Cindy Coping in your May Newsletter. The article is full of incorrect information, and a defeatist attitude which flies in the face of your mission.

Here is a rebuttal of just a few of her incorrect statements:

"According to the latest updates, the system will be privately managed and off-limits to the Freedom of Information Act,"

The USDA does not have the authority to require private individuals and businesses to submit personal/business information to a private database. The USDA has charged off half-cocked, wasted millions of dollars on an unconstitutional program, and is regrouping while continuing to sucker people into registering their homes and farms.

"...producer information will remain confidential..."

I am a retired Army Officer. The Veterans' Administration just released personal information on millions of veterans through internal bungling. As a result, the government is advising us that our personal information has been compromised, and we should take extra effort to protect ourselves against Identity Theft.

Other instances of inadvertent release of personal information by organizations are commonplace. If your information is in a database, it is at risk of being compromised, intentionally or otherwise. Additionally, lawmakers make laws. NAIS is not a law, it is being implemented through the "rulemaking" authority of USDA. Both Laws and Rules are subject to the interpretation of the courts. Just because some bureaucrat writes that your information will be protected under FOIA, that is no guarantee that some activist judge will not overturn that law/ruling, and allow other access to your information. Additionally, NAIS is the brainchild of giant globalist agribusiness. There is no doubt that they will work to get access to producers' private information, in order for them to continue their efforts of "vertical integration" of agriculture. That means that they want to force out the little guy, and own the entire meat production system, from raising grain, to calves, to stockyards, and packing houses. NAIS will help them do that.

" participation will remain voluntary"

That is absolutely false. The USDA has made it abundantly clear that they intend for NAIS to ultimately be a mandatory system for everyone who owns ONE chicken, duck, goose, pig, goat, sheep, alpaca, llama, cow, or horse. Here in Texas, the Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC) proposed rules that would make NAIS mandatory by July of 2006, in accordance with their masters, the unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.

"Producers will, however, pay a fee to fund the cost of privacy."

Under NAIS, everyone who owns one of the targeted animals will have to pay the full price of registering their premises (7 digit number, including GPS coordinates), and renewal fees, plus tagging their animals with a 15 digit Animal Identification Number, plus keeping records of: every time that animal leaves its "premises;" what other premises the animal visits when away from its home premises; the other animals with which it is commingled – both at home and away from its premises; and report all movements, sales, and deaths, to the federal government, within 24 hours of the incident.

In addition, the owner ("producer") will have to pay the full cost of registering and tagging their animals, reporting the information cited above, and the cost of the equipment to tag the animal and read the tags. The tags will probably be Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Tags. Current costs, cited by proponents of NAIS, are for "dumb" tags currently in use in warehouse/retail operations. Numerous stories in the High Tech Industry media have pointed out that those tags are not secure, can be "hacked," infected with computer viruses, and cloned. If NAIS is to provide a secure tracking means, then the chips used will have to be secure, and will cost many times the low-ball figures used in Pro-NAIS propaganda.

In short, animal owners will have to pay ALL the costs of NAIS. Those costs will be prohibitive for pet owners, small farmers and ranchers. Pro-NAIS propagandists cite pie-in-the-sky themes of Vets "loaning" equipment to animal owners. Two things are wrong with that: first, vets are in business to make money, and can't afford to be so generous; and secord, the animal/premises owner will have to have a tag reader constantly on hand to meet the record keeping and 24 hour reporting requirements.

"The government will not force domestic cattle producers into NAIS participation. However, global competition will."

Absolutely WRONG! The USDA continually states that NAIS will ultimately be a MANDATORY program for anyone who owns just ONE of the targeted animal species. It is so onerous that the Proposed Rules, which TAHC tried to implement, still require that a Granny Lady, in a 20th floor condominium, register her "premises," and keep it registered ($10 a year) if she owns ONE parakeet, canary, finch, etc., as they are classified as "exotic fowl." Fortunately, outraged citizens have caused TAHC to back off on NAIS rulemaking until 2007.

In the meantime, we are gathering legislators to kill HB1361, which authorized TAHC to implement an animal identification system "consistent with USDA's NAIS." We are also working to destroy TAHC, and incorporate any necessary functions into the Texas Department of Agriculture, where they will be under the direct supervision of an elected official. In the meantime, if private businessmen (producers) want to set up a private beef certification system, they are free to do so. They certainly do not need the heavy hand of the Federal Government to force pet owners and independent producers into their system.

"NAIS promoters sell the tracking system as a means to control contagious bovine diseases before we would destroy large numbers of herds. However, the U.S. cattle industry has controlled every bovine disease it has ever encountered, including mad cow."

Here, your author is correct. We have the safest food in the world. NAIS will not make it safer. For instance, NAIS will not protect us from Mad Cow disease (BSE). BSE is not contagious. Cows get it from eating the infected tissues of sick cows. USDA estimates that there may be seven cows in the U.S., which are currently infected with BSE. That's far less than a drop in the bucket. As we get farther away from old practices of feeding cow parts to cows, BSE should disappear from the U.S. We don't need to surrender our privacy and liberty to corporate agri-business for that to happen. Additionally, Pro-NAIS propagandists tout NAIS as a "miracle cure," which will allow us to control every disease. That is false. Any program intended to control an animal disease must be designed for that specific disease, how it operates, and how it spreads. For instance, West Nile Virus is spread by birds and mosquitoes, not horses. NAIS will control none of those diseases.

"Australia, Argentina, and New Zealand, however, with fully traceable beef, have established a competitive advantage over U.S. producers. That edge is consumer confidence in food safety. We currently import their beef while exporting our own. Without NAIS, U.S. producers would eventually face significant price discounts. The loss of just the $3 billion Japanese market currently costs U.S. producers about $150 per finished cow. Considering the U.S. produced 28 billion pounds of beef last year, the overall economic loss is enormous."

Bovine Excrement! Cattle owners in Australia are outraged. Current estimates by the Australian Beef Association indicates that the actual cost will be at least five times the government's cost estimates from when the program was shoved down their throats. Experience in other countries indicates the costs will be even higher. The same thing will happen here. Technology companies, itching to get control of this market, are vastly underestimating the costs of this program. They are low-balling the numbers now, knowing that they can jack up the costs later on. What's worse, criminally worse, in my opinion, is that the USDA has NEVER done a cost/benefit analysis of the NAIS. At one time, I was essentially the Operations Officer for a DoD program to buy a nationwide computer system. The USDA has failed to meet even the most rudimentary requirements for building such a system. They have not yet even fully defined the user requirements. That's right, NAIS is still just a Concept, waiting to be fleshed out. In the meantime, globalist agribusiness and their bureaucratic lackeys are pushing this thing, full bore. It's sort of like putting the cart before the horse, if anyone at the USDA could grasp such a concept.

"A recent study of sales at the Superior, Arizona, livestock auction proved that pre-conditioned calves command up to a seven percent price premium over unconditioned calves. It also showed that participation in voluntary preconditioning programs increased significantly since 1995, proportional to price premiums."

This just doesn't make sense. The Pro-NAIS propagandists keep telling cattlemen that they will get about seven percent more for their beef, once it is "certified" under NAIS. To justify that claim, they use current market figures, where the small amount of beef that is certified does bring more in certain markets. That's fine for now, when certified beef is scarce. However, what happens when market conditions are reversed? What happens when ALL beef is "certified?" Supply will exceed demand. Prices will drop, because ALL beef is certified. There will be no market advantage. It's just like when a hot new car hits the market. When supply is low, dealers start with the sticker price and add dealer fees far above the base price. However, after a couple of years, when that car floods the market and everybody has one, the dealer sells them below sticker price. It's the simple rules of Supply and Demand in a Free Market. NAIS pipe dreams will not change the basic rules of economics.

"I buy meat at the grocery store. As a consumer, I want to hold producers accountable for what I eat. Certain pesticides on cattle feed can show up in a carcass. The USDA regularly samples for them. If found, there is no accountability from the producer, because the information was lost. The consumer pays the full price. Using the NAIS, Western livestock producers could potentially receive a price premium for pesticide-free, range-raised beef, if carcass results are added to the database."

This very aspect is what is scaring the heck out of many cattlemen. They are afraid that Big Agribusiness will use NAIS to try and shove liability for bad meat back on them. Others maintain that such events will not happen, because there are far too many other places where the animal could become contaminated, after it leaves the ranch where it was born. Whichever you believe, it blows a big hole on the premise of accountability. Instead of NAIS, how about Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) for all meat? I sure don't trust those foreign meat producers to protect my health. With all the globalist market integration treaties and agreements, I think my family is at greater risk from third world meat producers than from our over-regulated domestic producers. Additionally, if you want pesticide-free, range-raised beef, why not buy it from a local producer you know and trust, instead of what the Industrial Giants want to sell you? NAIS will wipe out that option for you, as it will drive small producers out of business with the high cost of NAIS. Additionally, NAIS stops at the slaughterhouse. There is nothing in NAIS that will allow traceback from the meat counter in the grocery store. If that is added, the costs to the consumer will increase significantly.

"Speaking of contaminants, many veterinary products injected into cattle have a government-specified "withdrawal period," the number of days mandated to allow a chemical to pass out of an animal's system prior to slaughter. Withdrawal periods span a range from zero to 180 days. The NAIS could hold producers accountable for compliance."

Again, which person in the meat production line are you going to hold responsible for animals that exceed the residuals of the "withdrawal period?" The rancher that produced the calf, the ranch where it became a yearling, or the feed lot owner? To do this, why should I have to register my "premises" and my horse, so you will feel safe eating beef?

"Some NAIS opponents fear the Biblically foretold, "mark of the beast." However, NAIS cannot become a prototype for tracking humans, because we have already been tracked for years. The government requires all new mobile phones to be satellite-traceable. You can even spy on your family through their cell phones. All new automobiles have black boxes to tattle on us, if we cause an accident. When the Sheriff's Office conducts a missing person search, they are notified immediately, if the subject's credit card is used. Do you broadcast your opinion over the Internet? A few years ago, executives at Yahoo tracked down the location of a Chinese dissident, using his Internet records. He was arrested. At this point, NAIS can do little, if any, more damage to our privacy than we already willingly tolerate."

First, NAIS will provide 24 hour reporting of animal owner's movements to the federal government. We will be required to report the movement of our animals, off our premises. Those animals usually won't be traveling alone, we will be traveling with them. Therefore, we will have to report our (owner and animal) movement within 24 hours.

Second, NAIS will be mandatory for everybody. There are many religious sects that believe this government mandated animal numbering system is against their religion, which also requires them to raise their own food. This violates their Freedom of Religion, yet NAIS makes no exceptions for anyone. I recently read that 4-H students in Colorado were required to be fully NAIS-compliant this year. Incrementalism works to destroy our freedom.

Third, this is like saying: "Hey, we should give up on trying to protect our Property Rights and Liberties because the government has already violated those Rights and Liberties." If we are going to accept the author's premise, then why in the world would we waste time with efforts such as People For The West?

Anyone who is interested in more information on NAIS is cordially invited to visit the Liberty Ark Coalition's website, and read the NAIS story. It will send chills through any freedom-loving American. I invite you to join us in the fight against NAIS. Information on what you can do is also at our site.

Sincerely,

Randy Givens
aka COL George R. Givens,
U.S. Army, Retired
Paige, Texas

---------------------

The above commentary is in response to Cindy Coping's article, as follows:

National Animal Identification System

by Cindy Coping
for People for the West

May 2006

Many admirable freedom activists oppose the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). I respectfully disagree with them. According to the latest updates the system will be privately managed and off-limits to the Freedom of Information Act, producer information will remain confidential, and participation will remain voluntary. Producers will, however, pay a fee to fund the cost of privacy.

The government will not force domestic cattle producers into NAIS participation. However, global competition will. NAIS promoters sell the tracking system as a means to control contagious bovine diseases before we would destroy large numbers of herds. However, the US cattle industry has controlled every bovine disease it has ever encountered, including mad cow.

Australia, Argentina and New Zealand, however, with fully traceable beef, have established a competitive advantage over U.S. producers. That edge is consumer confidence in food safety. We currently import their beef while exporting our own. Without NAIS, US producers would eventually face significant price discounts. The loss of just the $3 billion Japanese market currently costs U.S. producers about $150 per finished cow. Considering the U.S. produced 28 billion pounds of beef last year, the overall economic loss is enormous.

NAIS will not simply boost consumer confidence in domestic beef. It could provide a means to improve overall domestic beef quality, marketability and prices.

About five years ago feedlot buyers began discounting range-raised calves, citing non-immunity to common diseases. The industry responded with several voluntary pre-conditioning programs which mandate multiple vaccinations, proper nutrition, weaning procedures and records maintenance. Pre-conditioning also requires tagging the animal with a number traceable back to the producer. The Brangus Breeders Association set up their own information system to enable commercial producers to track final carcass data and then fine-tune their breeding and production programs accordingly. That continuously improves and promotes the entire breed.

A recent study of sales at the Superior, Arizona livestock auction proved that pre-conditioned calves command up to a seven percent price premium over unconditioned calves. It also showed that participation in voluntary preconditioning programs increased significantly since 1995, proportional to price premiums.

I buy meat at the grocery store. As a consumer I want to hold producers accountable for what I eat. Certain pesticides on cattle feed can show up in a carcass. The USDA regularly samples for them. If found, there is no accountability from the producer, because the information was lost. The consumer pays the full price. Using the NAIS, Western livestock producers could potentially receive a price premium for pesticide-free, range-raised beef, if carcass results are added to the database.

Speaking of contaminants, many veterinary products injected into cattle have a government-specified "withdrawal period," the number of days mandated to allow a chemical to pass out of an animal's system prior to slaughter. Withdrawal periods span a range from zero to 180 days. The NAIS could hold producers accountable for compliance.

Some NAIS opponents fear the Biblically foretold, "mark of the beast." However, NAIS cannot become a prototype for tracking humans because we have already been tracked for years. The government requires all new mobile phones to be satellite-traceable. You can even spy on your family through their cell phones. All new automobiles have black boxes to tattle on us if we cause an accident. When the Sheriff's Office conducts a missing person search, they are notified immediately if the subject's credit card is used. Do you broadcast your opinion over the internet? A few years ago, executives at Yahoo tracked down the location of a Chinese dissident, using his internet records. He was arrested. At this point, NAIS can do little if any more damage to our privacy than we already willingly tolerate. '